Friday, 13 June 2014

The Journal is reporting that the European Court of Human Rights has found that it was lawful for the Spanish State to sack a religion teacher who had publicly rejected aspects of Catholic teaching.

This is a hugely significant judgment from the European Court of Human Rights. The judgment gives some general guidance on the autonomy of Churches, including their rights to deal with dissent, and the extremely limited rights that the State has to interfere in these matters.

If you're reading, Brian D'Arcy and Tony Flannery - the ECHR says your right to dissent means you can leave the Church you no longer agree with.

Also interesting to note the respectful way the Court refers to the Church's Canon Law - clearly it doesn't think it's as meaningless as Irish politicians seem to think.

Below the extract from the Court's Press Release:

Decision of the Court

Article 8

The Court
reiterated that there was no general right to employment or to the renewal of a
fixed-term contract. However, there was no reason of principle why the notion
of “private life” should be taken to exclude professional activities. In the
present case, private life and professional life were particularly intertwined,
as factors relating to private life were regarded as qualifying criteria for
the professional activity in question. The Court thus found Article 8
applicable, as the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract, on account of
events mainly relating to personal choices he had made in the context of his
private life, had seriously affected his chances of carrying on his specific
professional activity.

The Court
noted that the Ministry of Education had acted in accordance with the 1979
Agreement between Spain and the Holy See, supplemented by the Ministerial Order
of 11 October 1982, which was an international treaty and incorporated as such
into Spanish law in conformity with the Spanish Constitution. The non-renewal of the applicant’s contract of
employment had thus been based on the applicable Spanish law.

The Court
noted that the Bishop had relied in particular on the notion of “scandal” to
justify his

decision.
Even though the notion of scandal was not expressly provided for in the part of
the Code of Canon Law
concerning religious education teachers, it could be considered to refer to
notions that were
themselves in the canons such as “true doctrine”, “witness of Christian life”
or “religious or moral
considerations”. Those provisions expressed specific requirements with
foreseeable effects.

Since Mr
Fernández Martínez had been the director of a seminary, he could have foreseen
that the public
display of his militancy against certain precepts of the Church would be at
odds with the applicable
provisions of canon law and would not be without consequence. On the basis of
the clear

wording of
the Agreement between Spain and the Holy See, he could also have reasonably
foreseen

that in the
absence of a certificate of suitability from the Church his contract would not
be renewed.

The Court
found that the non-renewal of his contract was thus in accordance with the law. Like the
parties, the Court took the view that the decision not to renew the applicant’s
contract pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of the Catholic Church,
and in particular
its autonomy as to the choice of persons qualified to teach religious doctrine.

As regards
the autonomy of faith groups, the Court noted that religious communities
traditionally and
universally existed in the form of organised structures. The right of believers
to freedom of religion
meant that they should be allowed to associate freely, without arbitrary State
intervention.

The
autonomous existence of religious communities went to the very heart of the
protection which Article 9 of
the Convention afforded. It had a direct interest, not only for the actual
organisation of

those
communities but also for the effective enjoyment by their members of the right
to freedom of

religion.
Were the organisational life of the community not protected by Article 9 of the
Convention, all other
aspects of the individual’s freedom of religion would become vulnerable.

However,
Article 9 of the Convention did not enshrine a right of dissent within a
religious community.
In the event of any disagreement between a religious community and one of its

members, the
individual’s freedom of religion was exercised by the option of freely leaving
the community.

Respect for
the autonomy of religious communities recognised by the State implied, in
particular,

that the
State should accept the right of such communities to react, in accordance with
their own

rules and
interests, to any dissident movements emerging within them that might pose a
threat to

their
cohesion, image or unity. It was therefore not the task of the national
authorities to act as the

arbiter
between religious communities and the various dissident factions that existed
or might

emerge
within them.

The Court
reiterated that, but for very exceptional cases, the right to freedom of
religion as guaranteed
under the Convention excluded any discretion on the part of the State to
determine

whether
religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs were legitimate.
Moreover, the principle of
religious autonomy prevented the State from obliging a religious community to
admit or exclude an
individual or to entrust someone with a particular religious duty.

As a
consequence of their autonomy, religious communities were entitled to demand a
certain degree of
loyalty from those working for them or representing them.

The Court,
whilst observing that Mr Fernández Martínez had not received the dispensation
from the

obligation
of celibacy until after the publication of the newspaper article, took the view
that, by

signing his
successive employment contracts, he had knowingly and voluntarily accepted a
special

duty of
loyalty towards the Catholic Church, which limited the scope of his right to
respect for his

private and
family life to a certain degree. Such contractual limitations were permissible
under the

Convention
where they were freely accepted. The Court was not convinced that at the time
of the

publication
of the article in La Verdad, this contractual duty of loyalty had ceased to
exist. In choosing to
accept a publication about his family circumstances and his association with a protest oriented
meeting, Mr Fernández Martínez had severed the bond of trust that was necessary
for the

fulfilment
of his professional duties.

The Court
observed that Mr Fernández Martínez had voluntarily been part of the circle of
individuals who were
bound by a duty of loyalty towards the Catholic Church. The fact of being seen as campaigning
in movements opposed to Catholic doctrine clearly ran counter to that duty. In addition,
there was little doubt that the applicant, as former priest and director of a
seminary, had

been or must
have been aware of the substance and significance of that duty.

Mr Fernández
Martínez had been able to complain about the non-renewal of his contract before
the

Employment
Tribunal and then before the Murcia High Court of Justice, which had examined
the

lawfulness
of the measure in question under ordinary labour law, taking ecclesiastical law
into

account, and
had weighed up the competing interests of the applicant and the Catholic
Church. At

last
instance the applicant had been able to lodge an amparo appeal with the
Constitutional Court.

Since the
reasoning for the non-renewal decision had been strictly religious, the
domestic courts had considered
that they had to confine themselves to verifying respect for the fundamental
rights at stake. Thus,
the Constitutional Court had taken the view that the State’s duty of neutrality
precluded it from
ruling on the notion of “scandal” used by the Bishop to refuse to renew the
contract, or on the merits
of the optional celibacy of priests as advocated by the applicant. It had
examined the extent of
the interference with the applicant’s rights and had found that it was neither disproportionate
nor unconstitutional, but that it could be justified in terms of respect for
the lawful exercise by
the Catholic Church of its religious freedom in its collective or community
dimension.

The Court
was of the view that the domestic courts had taken into account all the
relevant factors

and had
weighed up the interests at stake in detail and in depth, within the limits
imposed on them

by the
necessary respect for the autonomy of the Catholic Church. In the light of the
review

exercised by
the national courts, it did not appear that the autonomy of the Church had been

improperly
invoked: the Bishop’s decision could not be said to have contained insufficient
reasoning, to have been
arbitrary, or to have been taken for a purpose that was unrelated to the
exercise of the Catholic
Church’s autonomy.

Having
regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to the State, the Court found
that the interference
with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life had not been
disproportionate.

The Court
concluded by nine votes to eight that there had been no violation of Article 8.

Having
regard to its conclusion under Article 8, the Court found that there was no
need to examine

Wednesday, 11 June 2014

Some good news at last from the Irish Bishops' Conference. The new Irish Catholic Catechism for Adults (ICCA) has been published by Veritas.

I only had a chance for a quick flick through it and may come back later declaring it to be a heterodox outrage. But at first glance it seems like a worthwhile effort.

On the plus side, the format is much more readable as a book than the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), which has multiple paragraphs, each numbered and cross referenced. The CCC is undoubtedly an essential resource, but for most people not a book that you sit down and read in sizeable chunks.

Following the format of the United States Catechism for Adults, there are frequent insertions about people of faith from Ireland and these are welcome. They point to the saints in a way that the Irish church sometimes fails to do.

The negatives?

There is only one format which is the oversized paper-back. I like a more compact version.

It is pricey - €24.99 or £19.99. And the study guide, at €12.99 for 92 pages, is very pricey. That said, it is A4 and lends itself to easy photocopying.

It was launched amidst the Tuam baby crisis/scandal.

It was launched by Sean Cardinal Brady - not really the image we want going forward as they say.

It undoubtedly fills a gap - but I'm not entirely convinced as to who the readership will be. It is described as for adults but it strikes me as possibly most suited to older children in schools who continue to be fed a very poor diet of religious education.

Monday, 9 June 2014

From Vatican Radio: Pope Francis says the 70th Anniversary of the D-Day landings is an opportunity for present generations to show gratitude for the “heavy sacrifice” of soldiers who landed on the beaches of Normandy to fight against “Nazi barbarism” and free occupied France during World War II.

He also states that it should serve as a reminder that excluding God from the lives of people and societies can bring nothing but death and suffering and he calls on the people of Europe to find their roots and future hopes in the Gospel of Christ.

The Holy Father’s words are contained in a message signed by his Secretary of State , Cardinal Pietro Parolin, to the Catholic Church in France on the occasion of a prayer service for the seventieth anniversary of World War II’s Normandy landings.

On June 5th 1944 around 156,000 Allied troops, landed on Normandy's beaches in one of World War Two's key turning points. Between 2,500 and 4,000 Allied troops are thought to have died the next day.

In the message, Pope Francis pays tribute to these soldiers. He also writes that he does not forget the German soldiers dragged into this drama, like all victims of war. As many as 9,000 Germans are also estimated to have lost their lives.

Pope Francis states that present generations should express their full gratitude to all those who made such a heavy sacrifice. He also writes that by educating future generations to respect all men and women created in the image of God and passing down memories to them, it is possible to hope for a better future.

The Pope stresses that commemorations such as these remind us that excluding God from the lives of people and societies can bring nothing but death and suffering and European nations can find in the Gospel of Christ, the Prince of peace, the root of their history and a source of inspiration for establishing ever more fraternal relations and solidarity.

In conclusion, the Pope entrusts to the path of peace to the protection of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross - co-patron of Europe - and the Virgin Mary.

"When the landings of allied troops began in France, occupied by the German Wehrmacht, in June 1944, it was for the peoples of the entire world, but also for a very large proportion of Germans, a sign of hope: may peace and liberty come to Europe soon. What had happened? A criminal and his henchmen had succeeded in taking the power of the State in Germany. And that had created a situation in which, under the domination of the Party, law and injustice became embedded one within the other, and often transformed, almost inseparably, one into the other. Because the regime led by a criminal also exercised the classic functions of government and its procedures. He could then, in a certain sense, demand legal obedience from the citizens and respect regarding the authority of the State (Romans 12, 1ss !), while at the same time making use of the instruments of law as instruments of his criminal goals.

The rule of law itself, which kept functioning partly under its ordinary forms in daily life, had become at the same time a power for the destruction of the law: the perversion of the procedures that should serve justice, yet at the same time consolidated the domination of iniquity and rendered it impenetrable, meant, at its most profound, a domination of falsehood, which obscured consciences.

At the service of this domination of falsehood, there was a regime of fear, within which no one could trust anyone else, because each one had to, in a certain sense, protect oneself under the mask of falsehood. Such a mask allowed one to protect oneself, but also served to reinforce the power of evil. It was thus necessary for the whole world to intervene to implode the circle of criminal action, to re-establish freedom and law. Because this was so, we give thanks at this hour, and it is not only the countries occupied by German troops and left at the mercy of Nazi terror that give thanks. Also we Germans, we give thanks that, with the aid of this engagement, we recovered freedom and law.

If there ever was in history a bellum justum [just war], it was certainly this one, the engagement of the Allies, because the engagement also served the good of those against whose country war was waged. Such a finding seems important to me, because it shows, based on a historical event, the unsustainable character of an absolute pacifism. This takes nothing away, naturally, from the obligation of considering very strictly the question of if and under what conditions it is possible still today to have something such as a just war, that is, a military intervention at the service of peace and obeying moral criteria, against established unjust regimes. Above all, that which has been said allows for a better understanding, let us hope, that peace and the law, that peace and justice, are inseparably linked one with the other. When the law is destroyed, when injustice takes over, it is always peace that is threatened and already, partly, weakened. Concern for peace is, in this sense, above all a concern for a form of law that ensures justice to the individual and to the community as a whole."

Pope Benedict said this marking the 60th Anniversary ten years ago. The wisdom and careful thought shines through.

You can read the myth here and here and all over the place. Or in fact read it below:

Years ago I told this Pentecost Monday tale and it has made the rounds. It stands being repeated. I think this stands as a lesson for what happens when we lose sight of continuity. Take this for what it may be worth. Some years ago I was told this story by an elderly, retired Papal Ceremoniere or a Master of Ceremonies who (according to him) was present at the event about to be recounted. You probably know that in the traditional Roman liturgical calendar the mighty feast of Pentecost had its own Octave. Pentecost was a grand affair indeed, liturgically speaking. In some places in the world such as Germany and Austria Pentecost Monday, Whit Monday as the English call it, was a reason to have a civil holiday, as well as a religious observance.

The Monday after Pentecost in 1970 His Holiness Pope Paul VI rose bright and early and went to the chapel for Holy Mass. Instead of the red he expected, there were green vestments laid out for him.

He queried the MC assigned that day, "What on earth are these for? This is the Octave of Pentecost! Where are the red vestments?"

"Santità," quoth the MC, "this is now Tempus ‘per annum’. It is green, now. The Octave of Pentecost is abolished." "Green? That cannot be!", said the Pope, "Who did that?" "Holiness, you did." And Paul VI wept.

Thursday, 6 March 2014

I travel on the train a lot. Trains have their own little world, communities of fellow travellers (not often you get to use that term non-pejoratively). There are fairly rigid structures on trains. People stand in the same spot every day. And it's always funny when you get on the train and there are intruders - two guys going up to Dublin for some reason, a mother and daughter on a shopping trip and occasionally someone on their way to court. They have no idea the confusion they create by deciding to stand in the middle of the buffet car, right in the middle of someone's space. There's shuffling, strategic placing of bags and a standing too close in hope they get the message.

Sometimes someone just disappears after years of seeing them every day. Have they died? Retired or changed jobs? Sitting at home with a broken leg? Occasionally a new person becomes a regular. Perhaps randomly, perhaps someone's sister who can't quite decide which is worse, standing with her brother and his very peculiar train mates, or taking her chances further down the train.

There are some odd people. Or people whose behaviour can be odd. I'll mention three: Top Girl, Hat Boy and Impatient Man.

Top Girl gets on the train wearing a top. A fairly standard top, a plain coloured cottony top. Halfway through the journey she goes into the toilets and changes her top. It's not into a work top. It's not a better quality blouse. She doesn't cycle or run to the train. It's just another plain coloured top, from teal to lilac, from black to red. Intriguing.

Hat Boy is a hoverer, a lurker. He stands awkwardly on the platform. He stays near the end of carriages, not quite committing to one or the other. He uses the reflections in the windows and the overhead luggage racks to watch people.

Impatient Man behaves as if the train will go faster and arrive sooner if he pants and runs up and down the carriage. He must be first off the train, even if this means barging past people to get to the door. On one notable occasion he stood on the back of someone's foot and got a dig for his troubles. He has been known to lift people's cups of tea or coffee and just drop them on the floor.

Perhaps somewhere, there is a blogger writing about Catholicus Nua, the odd ball on the train. Who knows?

Monday, 3 March 2014

Once more the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, delivers the diagnosis, the analysis of the problems in the Church.

And once more he fails to deliver any suggestions for fixing things. Nor does he seem to be remotely aware of his part in the failure. Patsy Mc Garry writes:

Catholic teaching on contraception, cohabitation, same sex relationships, the divorced and remarried is “disconnected from real life experience of families – and not by just younger people”, said Archbishop Diarmuid Martin last night.In general, church teaching in those areas was found to be “poorly understood . . . poorly accepted” by Catholics in Dublin, he said at a meeting in Holy Cross College, Clonliffe. He was commenting on findings of a consultation in the diocese.

Every time the good Archbishop opens his mouth some sort of subtle nuance drops out. Where Cardinal Brady (God help us, has he still not retired?) back in 2008 managed to condemn same sex civil unions in something like clear terms, Martin, in a letter to the Irish Catholic wrote:

The debate about civil unions is precisely about a situation in which the mutuality of the sexes is no longer seen as something anthropologically unique and irreplaceable, but simply a cultural construct which can be adapted and changed. That is the central issue which the Church should be addressing in her catechesis and in her witness towards society.

No doubt the faithful in Rialto and Fatima Mansions were grateful for the clarity of that contribution.

So now Catholic teaching is disconnected from real life. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. Christ has always made "impossible" demands on us. He wants hands cut off and eyes plucked out to avoid sin. He expects sinners to go and sin no more. He expects marriage to be for life. He wants us to love God and neighbour more than we love ourselves. Of course there's a disconnect from "real life".

Please sign the petition asking the King of the Belgians to do his duty before God and refuse to the sign the law on children's euthanasia. You need a name and email address.

Petition is here. Don't have to be Belgian, but based on text should be European. The text of petition is below:

Your Majesty:You are the King of the Belgians and as such committed to your people. You are used to signing every law that has been adopted by the democratically elected Parliament, even if you do not agree with them. However, there are laws that will affect not only Belgium but also Europe in the long term.This law is unique and it serves as a sign to other countries that it might be permissible to introduce such laws. Please listen to the many voices at home and abroad, warning you of the dangers of this law - your Episcopal Conference and the members of parliaments across Europe who have spoken up clearly against this law.As concerned citizens of Europe, we write to you to urge you not to sign this bill, even if it will be a challenge for you to defend this decision. Please do not say yes to the most frightening law on euthanasia worldwide.Listen to your conscience and stand as a monarch with ethical principles. Show yourself worthy of the challenge for which you have been prepared throughout your life.

Thursday, 9 January 2014

I few weeks ago I mentioned/complained to a priest friend that in the two years since the new translation of the Missal had come in, I had only heard Eucharistic Prayer IV used once. It was in Letterkenny Cathedral, and the reason it was used was it was on the missalette.

(On an unrelated note, while I don't have massive hangups about missalettes the way some people do, I do dislike the shorter ones which are "forcing" priests to use the Apostles Creed because the Nicene doesn't fit. And a few weeks ago an entire paragraph of the second reading was missing.)

My friend said you couldn't use Eucharistic Prayer IV on Sundays as the preface was fixed for that prayer and there were special prefaces for use on Sundays.

Being the polite, respectful, chappette I am, I didn't argue the case too much with him, though I thought he was wrong. But now I've done my research and he was wrong.

General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 365 d, states: "Eucharistic Prayer IV has an invariable Preface and gives a fuller summary of salvation history. It may be used when a Mass has no Preface of its own and on Sundays in Ordinary Time.

General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 365 d, states: "Eucharistic Prayer IV has an invariable Preface and gives a fuller summary of salvation history. It may be used when a Mass has no Preface of its own and on Sundays in Ordinary Time.
What is a Mass with a preface of its own (or proper preface)?

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments clarified this in an official reply to a doubt in the mid-1970s. The response specified that a proper preface meant preface of the day, not the preface of the season. Only those Masses are considered to have proper prefaces which are obligatory on a specific day.

In practice this means the Masses of major solemnities which have prescribed prefaces, such as Christmas, Easter, and the Sacred Heart; or one of a specific range of prefaces, such as Sundays of Advent and Lent.

Thus, Eucharistic Prayer IV may be used on Sundays of Ordinary Time. It may also be used for daily Masses during the same period, and may even be used for daily Mass during periods such as Advent and Lent. Though it may be pastorally better to use the seasonal preface unless there is a very good reason for using Eucharistic Prayer IV.

Likewise, this Eucharistic Prayer may be used for any votive Mass, even if the rubrics indicate another preface. Since the celebration of the votive Mass is itself an option, the Mass's variable elements are not strictly obligatory.

For example, the preface of St. Joseph is obligatory on March 19 -- and consequently Eucharistic Prayer IV may not be used on that day. If, however, a priest celebrates a votive Mass of St. Joseph on any day that such Masses are allowed, he would be free to use either the preface of St. Joseph, or another legitimate preface.

About Me

"What I am for you terrifies me; what I am with you consoles me. For you I am a bloggist; but with you I am a Christian. The former is a duty; the latter a grace. The former is a danger; the latter, salvation" (St Augustine, paraphrased)